Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / On the national idea / Articles
Andrew Fursov: "Rome does not pay traitors"
Material posted: Publication date: 20-01-2017
Twenty-first century will be a time of fierce struggle for the future when entire Nations, ethnic groups, cultures will mercilessly, without sentiment erased with an Eraser of History. In this fight, survive and win cohesive social system, soldered a single code value, characterized by minimal social polarization and having a high percentage of carriers of knowledge. The oligarchic system in this fight will not survive, their fate is to become an economic fertilizer, manure for the strong. Otherwise they do not deserve.


— Where is this world (i.e. how does the picture of the future)?

— The world is rapidly moving to the end of capitalism. From the last not so many left: the market is almost gone, there are global monopolies; the state withers away; civil society deflates; the policy becomes a combination of the administrative system and show business, the money lost a number of functions and has largely ceased to be money; the Europeans lost one of its pillars — the work ethic, capital almost managed to devour, to gobble up work, but it ceases to be capital.

— Who is building a new world?

— At the same time are two processes: the destruction of the old world and the new. The old capitalist world capitalist breaks the top — she, at least in the long term, is not necessary. Since the mid-1970s of years is the dismantling of capitalism. He kind of "goes" in their "dedemocratization past", in the era of the "iron heel" and the East India companies, the predecessors of the current transnational corporations, only steeper than those of the latter. Coagulation progress and has a way of creating the world's elite in their new world. For the greater part of mankind this "new world" will turn to a new "dark ages" — not to be confused with the middle Ages, which started in the IX century the collapse of the Empire of Charlemagne. The "dark ages" is the period between the mid-sixth century (finally stopped working system of Roman aqueducts; 476 as the end of the Roman Empire — false fiction of the Roman priests, vypyachivalis thus their role) and the middle of IX century.

Temnovatoe is, indeed, the age of darkness and blood, in contrast to the besmirched leaders of the Renaissance and especially the Enlightenment (the rogues of type of Voltaire) of the middle Ages — bright, until the beginning of XIV century era; XIV-XVII centuries — a new temnovatoe, which, however, was equally zasuvny as a false front — Renaissance.

— Is there an alternative to the Western model of the future (new dark ages)?

— At the moment this alternative is viewed poorly. Now the main thing is not to give realized temnovolosaya project, and we'll see. The alternative is resistance to the global agenda, i.e. the rate to the barbaric reduction of the world population, the destruction of the state (sovereignty), family, science, education, health, latest, as noted by M. Moore turns to zdravoochranenie.

— Is it possible to return to the path of development, in which the planet was 50-60 years ago?

— Barely. Return and restoration in the history of impossible. It is impossible to repeat a unique era of 1945-1975 from the breakthrough of mankind in the head with the USSR in the future, jerk, artificially interrupted by stupid Soviet nomenklatura and calculating the apex of the capitalist world. Soviet elite in this situation the Union paid with the destruction of the USSR.

Is it possible to restore people's confidence in the future, hope and optimism?

— Optimism is a state of mind strong and motivated people, able not just to change circumstances, but to create them. Optimism is hard, but at the same time, joyful work, often in spite of fate. Optimism it is impossible to give, to give, to return. He is born in the struggle. Of course, there are biochemical (genetic) basis for optimism, however, optimistic about the social function of healthy societies. It is enough to compare the Soviet society of the mid-1930s- mid-1960-ies ("We have no barriers on land and at sea," "the Andromeda Nebula" by I. Efremov and many others) with the Soviet society 1970-1980-ies — weary, cynical, sarcastic and bleak. And this despite the fact that living in the 1970-ies became more comfortable, lighter and better fed; the fear is gone, but happiness has not come. 1960-ies was a brief moment of hope which was not fulfilled neither we, nor the world.

— Is it possible to put progress at the service of all people (or at least the majority)?

— The Soviet Union tried. And for thirty years we is out. So — you can. Just need to be vigilant and to remember Stalin's warning that the development of socialism the class struggle intensifies, i.e. there is a threat of degeneration. And so it happened, and one of the first has transformed certain segments of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB. Flawed party Inquisition.

— The dream — rough draft of the future. What people dream today?

Different people dream about different things. It depends on what they are focused on yav, NAV or rule. Ie or the world of the dark and vulgar passions (wealth and pleasure at any cost to myself and to the detriment of others), or to jointly work on the basis of social justice and the preservation of their ethnocultural identity.


— The problem of the "Golden billion" — the most dangerous problem of our time, do You agree with this?

— The problem of the "Golden billion" in the form in which it was formulated, is not the most dangerous, as billion of this is blurred. In Europe, it blurs the Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Africans, and more! The impression is that the European part of the "Golden billion" written off and descend into the "toilet stories", whether trying a selective manner by using a people from the South to work out of the Europeans a new type that is not a number, and ability will be to fight for the future. However, while young educated Europeans emigrating to Canada, Australia, New Zealand, but not in the USA where soon it will be too hot. After all, there are social problems involved in the racial: Negroes are now called African Americans, Hispanics (Latinos). Racial and ethno-cultural composition of the West is changing. In fact, the West in the usual sense is not. There are postzapadnoy post-Christian society, is rapidly rolling in "the hole of History." A plan from those whom Disraeli called the "masters of history", and the writer O. Markeev, "home of the world game", there is, but, first, it seems that the situation is out of control. Secondly, here is struggle within the ruling elite of the world (she's not single) for the future. It is these contradictions we need to play as Stalin did in the 1930-ies.

— What place is given to Russia and Russian (in a generalized sense, i.e., the residents of Russia) according to this plan?

In the original site plan for the Russian and many other non-Western peoples, I think not. But, I repeat, the plan must break down. However, several lines globalists are treated very harshly: the destruction of the state, family, education, health and science. It's part of their global agenda. Therefore, no matter what kind of rhetoric and situational hands-free action in foreign policy, I believe in good intentions only, this government we have that will stop the pogrom of science, education and health, i.e., will break the global agenda in these fields. What is this struggle for state sovereignty today, if all goes so that tomorrow no one and nothing (the absence of healthy men and brain) will defend him?

— What plan can we offer instead?

— Who is the we? The people, the oligarchs, the power? To offer the plan, you need to have a strategy. To have a strategy, you need to have an ideology. We have a state — formally — free and non-ideological, and the lot of those in today's world, no ideology, and therefore, his project of the future — picnic on the sidelines of history waiting for that, maybe the owners will call for a new celebration of life. Call even as "bad guys": "Rome does not pay traitors". The goal for Russia can be only one — to survive and win in the twenty-first century, preserving the identity, population and territory. This is the minimum program. This can be done only by creating a social system based on social justice, then the power and the Motherland are the same. People can kill for money but die for money, no one will. For the Motherland — will, the Great Patriotic war is shown. Because of that we won — for us was a fair social system, whose collectivist-anti-capitalist character to match the Russian archetypes of consciousness and the unconscious, historical and cultural code; in the words of Alexander Blok, Bolshevism "is the property of the Russian soul, and not faction in the State Duma".

Twenty-first century will be a time of fierce struggle for the future when entire Nations, ethnic groups, cultures will mercilessly, without sentiment erased with an Eraser of History. Thugs from the government (their name is Legion, one example — look at the face of Hilary Clinton) will not stop before anything. In this fight, survive and win cohesive social system, soldered a single code value, characterized by minimal social polarization and having a high percentage of carriers of knowledge, a kind of nation-Corporation. The oligarchic system in this fight will not survive, their fate is to become an economic fertilizer, manure for strong; in fact, otherwise they do not deserve. In the second half of the XX century oligarchization power structure in the USSR twice blocked progress and paid dearly for it. In the mid 1960-ies the Soviet Union was ready to commit scientific-technical breakthrough in the future, turning from the systemic anti-capitalism in the real postcapitalism, but it was not in the interests of the Soviet nomenklatura and the top of the world capitalist class. A breakthrough was tightly blocked, and the rise in oil prices and detente introduced to the Soviet leaders a sense of complacency, and of deep satisfaction. We often Brezhnev era, remembered with affection — stability, confidence in the future. In the short term it was, however, in the medium (not to mention the long term, the Brezhnev era was eating up the future time of missed historic opportunities. "Baggy old men... afraid of their own wives" (E. Unknown) blew the future of the system — she died in them and through them. And this despite the fact that in a multilayer of the USSR there was a powerful scientific-technical complex, which was supposed to take off in the future is not later than the beginning of 1990-ies. However, if the impulse of the 1960s, felled by detente and oil, the second restructuring and the destruction of the Soviet Union, based on the banal desire of the Soviet nomenklatura "to enroll in burzhuinstve". It is hoped that the results at the end of 1980-ies, the evacuation mode was not only financial, but also technical and scientific. However, the "shot of the future" — that's fine, but own need to not make a mistake.

To Russia (and us along with it) to survive in this situation, you need to fend off external attacks. The well-known truth that when a dog is beaten with a stick, that to be saved, must not bite the stick and not even the hand and the throat of the one who holds the stick. To find this throat, you have to imagine the structure of the modern world, to know the forces acting in it and their habitats.


— Does the science that You present, the answer to these questions?

— Yes, it does. Russia's enemy — the global money lenders and serve them, politicians, journalists, show figures, and not only outside our country but within it. In the latter case we are talking about the regressors, crumbling values, intellectual and technological foundations of our society. But they're just faceless global matrix chapekovsky salamanders, which the writer said, "They come like a thousand masks without faces". In other words, the main enemy is the global matrix, a kind of grown to planetary size Shelob spider from Lord of the rings. By the way, the idea of a global Matrix (G-Matrix) as a structure and the means to impose global population a way of thinking, put forward the figures of the club of Rome in 1970

— Is there a mechanism for linking scientific advances with practical policy (or diplomacy, or who is there today solves problems of survival and power) in our country?

— The tasks of survival and victory in any country should first solve the country's leadership. The question is, how well and honestly it does, how much identifies himself with his country. Finally, how developed his instinct, how he is stronger prehensile instinct and passion for a beautiful life. If the latter prevail, sooner or later we are History in the form of Shelob or their own people and say with naughty grin: "You still singing? This thing: so go, I will dance!" And dance this is likely to be Dance macabre — dance of death.

— Does Russia have the power to lead them to salvation?

— I should hope so. But the rescue of drowning-the handiwork of drowning. As sung in the "international": "no One will grant us deliverance, Not God, nor Tsar, nor hero. / We will achieve the liberation / of His own hand". We long to swing, but quickly go. So there is always hope.

— How to find them and rally?

The best way cohesion is a common goal based on common values. But what the cause may be the rich man and poor man, the thief and beggar?

— What ideology should take Russia in the XXI century?

— Ideology does not hang in the shop on the hanger, they are born in a bloody and violent crises as the answer to the question, what kind of future we want for ourselves, our children and grandchildren. The great ideologies of modernity — Marxism, liberalism (died 1910-ies, not to be confused with what is called now in the West and, especially, in Russia), and conservatism were born in Europe in the age of revolution 1789-1848.

— Isn't it time in Russia to create military-clergy?

— Bars are not created, they occur in the course of history. I think, however, time bars, like the monarchy, passed — past, vixerunt, as told to Cicero. Especially in Russia's history of a strong caste system, like the aristocracy, was not.

— For the past 400 years at the beginning of each century, Russia participated in the war that threatens her destruction: 1610-ies — the Great confusion; 1710-e — Northern war; 1810-s — the Patriotic war against Napoleon; 1910 — the First world war. This is a coincidence or regularity? Now go 2010.

— I can give you another number: Livonia (1558-1583), with Poland (1654-1667), the Seven-year (1756-1763), the Crimean (1853-1856), the Great Patriotic war (1941-1945). Their value is less, so the mysticism of numbers here.

— "Masters of history" build your model of the future society. In this regard, a number of issues. Every model known to man, will be able to operate, i.e. to be viable?

— Of course, not all of them.

— Every model will be able to develop?

— The same thing.

— Are there criteria to distinguish between viable and non-viable systems are still at the stage of their modeling?

— I'm afraid not. We can only assess probability. Can be sickly model, but the world is changing, and this model is the most adequate — it's like a recessive mutation in the development of biological systems. And Vice versa: there is a strong, well-adapted model, but changes dramatically the situation and conditionally: dinosaurs become extinct, and marginal "shrews" capture the vacant ecological niches.

— Is there a methodology that allows you to deliberately build a viable system?

— In a rapidly changing world, more possible principles of a negative number — ie what not to do.

— Whether the model has a future for us?

— While I can't see it. In General, models are born in the struggle, particularly the resistance to Evil.

— You repeatedly mentions in his lectures the theory of systems. But common to all systems theory no, dozens of them. Which one mean You?

— Systems theory — a thing universal, it has subsections, for example, the theory of the living (anti-entropic) systems, which includes the society.

— If now this theory of systems, the application that describes the society?

— There are various theories of social systems, for example, the theory of formations of Marx, by the way, not the worst. The Theory Of Alexander Bogdanov, Vilfredo Pareto.


— What is the role of Abrahamic religions in society? How do you feel about the work of L. N. Tolstoy "Why the Christian Nations in General and in particular Russian are now in distress"?

— Tolstoy recorded the obvious — the difference between what, according to the Gospels, Jesus taught from what was the Biblical project, which stands at the origins Paul, in the latter much is left of Saul. Indeed, where Jesus ' love, Paul and the Church of fear; Jesus was in conflict with the government, Paul and the Church called for obedience to them. In the scheme of Paul's many from the old Testament of this "window of vulnerability" of Christianity. Not casually in Russia in the XIX century the old and New Testament was not published under one cover. As for the differences between the dream and revolutionary enthusiasm on the one hand, and the organization, this impulse utilizada, Dostoyevsky devoted "Legend of the Grand Inquisitor". Jesus hardly would think of the Inquisition, Jesuitism and the dogma of papal infallibility.

— Do You agree with the thesis that after Christ Christianity was rewritten by the Pharisees?

— After Christ, Christianity was not copied and created; the process of creation lasted for 150-200 years (III-IV centuries ad), when was created the body of literature and built — according to the model of the Roman Empire hierarchy, and territorial structure. Was developed by the Biblical project, adequate to the new era. If the area of the Mediterranean region social control has been possible to observe that the major was "culture of shame" and the external power control — "the Egyptian model", which found the maximum expression in the Roman Empire and Roman law, changed conditions demanded a more subtle and deeper interiorisation forms is not just social but socio-psychological control — from the inside. Hence "culture of conscience". Ie people and the world at the turn of the I Millennium BC — I Millennium BC is so complicated, that one violence was not enough. Bible project — this is a combination of internal and external obedience to the primacy of the first, and part of the functions of external obedience took over the Christian Church, therefore, many social movements took the form of heresies.

By the end of the XV century, the Catholic Church is so compromised, and heresy is so undermined her position that she was challenged by Protestantism. Being an attack on Catholicism and confronting him (for the tension — until the religious wars of XVI — first half XVII centuries, compared with the figures which our Ivan the terrible is an example of humanism and piety), Protestantism, paradoxically, not only weakened, but strengthened temporarily in part of the Bible project. First, he made it more modern (in terms of orientation to money, to success, on the selective chosen — in this respect, Protestantism is the most Judaize version of Christianity), more violent and at the same time more simple form; second, became a kind of valve for the disgruntled Exodus of Pax Catholica, making the last peace. But not for long. Time worked against both versions of Christianity that broke away from Orthodoxy (Orthodoxy). Was a new era for structural and reflexive control, in which you had formal rational knowledge of science. And not coincidentally, in the same France the development of such knowledge (e.g., represented by Descartes) was promoted by the Jesuits.

In the XVIII — early XIX century Biblical project bursting at the seams, suffered another mutation: the Christian faith was discarded, and appeared first protodeclare in draft form British Masonic lodges, implemented mainly on French soil, — Education, and then ideology in its three basic forms: conservatism, liberalism, Marxism. It was already non-religious, i.e. terminal form of the Biblical project, acting both as means of struggle and as a form of social control dramatically complicate the social environment. Like when Christian priests were removed or destroyed, the priests (on the territory of Russia — Vedic) in the XVIII-XX centuries, the Freemasons, the ideologists of liberalism, Marxism, the Nazis descended on the Christian Church. In this case, it is pertinent to recall the phrase of St. Augustine that "punishment without guilt does not happen," or with what judgment ye judge...

All you need to say that the original complexity of Christianity, reflecting the complexity of European civilization in the age of late antiquity (elements of antiquity, Jewish and German traditions), is both a strength and weakness. A complex composition can be disassembled. Is Islam a single — it only on the pieces to cut, but Christianity is fraught with unexpected mutations. 've noticed the same N. A. Berdyaev, Christianity is fraught with Catholicism, Catholicism — Protestantism, and Protestantism with secularism (I would add here masonry). This is one line. Catholicism is fraught with degeneration in neogrotesque hierarchy. And does the Pope of Rome after the adoption of the dogma of infallibility of the Pope is not the high priest of the neo-pagan in essence the cult? And complicated relationship of Christianity and Judaism has already been proclaimed by the Roman high priest "big brother"? And isn't "big brother" Big Brother? Someone will say: where is the paganism? Christianity — a monotheistic religion. But, first, "paganism" is a negative label that representatives of the Abrahamic religions are hung on all neuramidase. Secondly, Jews and Muslims doubt the "solid sincerity" of Christians in the monotheism of the Trinity, icons. So it's not all just Christianity, that contributed to its expansion, can be a serious problem. However, it seems that the same Vatican that well.

Currently, the Bible project is almost at the finish line, as well as the phenomenon of ideology; the world elite are urgently seeking a replacement. And today, something you can guess. On the one hand, the "home of the world game" famously smashing education and science, taking first and second in the closed structures, trying to turn people into perpetual adolescents who replace the culture of comfort and a feeling of deep physical satisfaction. I will give only two examples — an American film and television. At the time journalist D. Robinson in the newspaper "times" wrote the following: "1985 will go down in history as the darkest period in American cinema. This is the year Hollywood after nearly seventy years of domination in the film industry have rejected all claims to serve healthy intelligence of an adult". And that's what told leading fairly primitive transmission of health "Live healthy" - E. Malysheva. In "the night" (from 11.02.2016 g), excitedly telling them about his journalistic training along with other Eastern Europeans in the United States in the mid-1990s, she said, who taught them to navigate in their shows: "You have to do TV for the simplicity of presentation is underdeveloped for eleven-year-old adolescents." Judging by the gear she's doing. What a contrast with the transmission of health of the Soviet era, which led, for example, smart, intelligent, far from complacency and reared E. Belyanchikova!

Turning adults into immature adolescents living than the intellect, and hormonal and instinctive programs, simply put, mental debilitation (this are the various talk shows) pursues a simple objective: to educate the completely dependent personality that can be easily connected to a global communications network as a fully managed "cells". Creative, minimally intelligent person in a "cell" the electronic brain-controlled neogreca and the techno-mages, not turn.

On the other hand, more resources are invested in research NBICS — nano-bio-info-cogno-socio. Speech, apparently, goes about establishing a remote control living on floating cities or in inaccessible land enclaves of the elite over the Psychosphere of the population. Something tells me today in the form and under the guise of distance education, maximum primitivizing education itself, excluding from it the personal beginning (a teacher) and demilitarises the object of learning actually practiced the methods and forms of remote psychosociocultural "top" over the "Nizami". I think, however, this scheme will fail, especially in Russia. Fighting regressors requires one important thing: in no event it is impossible to personalize, it is not the individual, and functions, bio Matrix, outwardly civilized and sometimes comely orcs. But an Orc is an Orc, ie something of his will, and not having driven someone else's evil will.

— Is Christianity is not a religion created by slave owners for slaves?

In the end, roughly speaking, to make it simple and define something at a social function, Yes, Jesus, okay, this is about something else. But Marx is one thing, but Marxism is more, no wonder Marx said he was not a Marxist. I wonder what would Jesus say about the creators of the system of Christianity, not to mention the current state of the last? I think I would have thought of his "not peace, but a sword...". However, "slave owners and slaves" can be changed to "feudal lords" and "peasants," "bourgeois" and "proletarians". The Christian Church has existed in three social systems are — ancient-slave, feudal and capitalist (and even in the system-capitalism — the USSR — has remained, though in a modified KGB).

— Do you agree with the thesis that the confession of a stranger (which came from other people) religion is a spiritual enslavement?

— Of course, I agree. It is a spiritual diversion when interiorities alien implant, and a system (ethnicity, nation) becomes the ground for the fulfillment of Others. Borrowed gods is as the loan at very high interest rates just to pay the debt have no money, and twisted history.

In the lecture You say, "Horde period was most favorable for the Russian Orthodox Church". Isn't this the adoption by the Horde in the fourteenth century of Islam to the struggle to destroy?

— Not led. Orthodox priests prayed in the churches for the infidel king, pleased with him. But once the Horde is gone, the Russian rulers immediately set about the Church. The first steps in this direction was made by Ivan III, continued — cool — Ivan IV — soft in form but hard in content — Alexei Mikhailovich. Well, Peter brought the form in accordance with the content of: the Patriarchate was abolished, and instead established the Synod, de facto the Ministry of the Church. So the actions of the Bolsheviks in relation to the Church, aside from the excesses of Lenin and Trotsky, and Khrushchev protricity, quite in line and the traditions of the Russian government. In Russia since Ivan the terrible slander the Church has always been in power, the autocrat was more important than the Church hierarchy, which in the case of things quickly pointed out their place. That is why the Church and supported in 1917 fevralistov, anticipating freedom from the Supreme secular power. Very short-sighted, and soon the Bolsheviks and they explained it. By the way, at the same time, only much more brutally (Latin temperament), Mexican revolutionaries explained the Catholic priests of their historical wrongs. The only trouble is that in both cases — Russian and Mexican — suffered a lot of innocent ordinary priests.

— Yes, it's up to us Christianity as a state ideology?

— Orthodoxy is not suitable as the state ideology for several reasons. First, religion and ideology are fundamentally different forms of organization of ideas; ideology at its core is a denial of religion; the overlap in this case does not matter. Secondly, as said V. G. Belinsky, Russian man is not religious, he was superstitious. By the way, until the middle of XVII century, before the reform, Alexei — Nikon Russian Orthodox lay a strong imprint of the Vedic religion. Before this turn there was no formula "I am the servant of God", instead — "child of God", i.e. a descendant of God. This is a typical formula of the Vedic religion of the Slavs, in which the gods — the ancestors of the people. Thirdly, in Russia under the Orthodox Church, as under the monarchy, brought hell 1917 — vixerunt (outlived). Interestingly, as soon after the February revolution, soldiers were allowed not to go to prayers, more than 80% are no longer doing it — here's a "God-bearing people". In General, we have the notion of the Russian person formed by several writers that the Russian peasant hardly knew. This is primarily Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoevsky, fantasies which (in one case a bright, "daytime", and in the other patients, "night") we take for reality. Read something in this respect, we must first N. Leskov, partly G. Uspensky and Chekhov, even from smaller part — I. Bunin. But this is the way. Fourth, Russia — polirelihiynyy country, I'm not talking about the fact that we have plenty of atheists (for example, I am an atheist). And the fact that the former Communist bosses with a candle in the Church are, so that they have a replacement membership card. Was the membership card, now instead, icon and candle. As told Habakkuk, "Isho yesterday was blyadina son, and copello sir". Fifth, the time of religion in the world is going; the current explosion of Islamism — a political phenomenon, it is a rearguard action.


— Why in the Soviet bloc was widespread dissatisfaction with life and the government?

— There are several reasons. First, people don't appreciate what they had. They have seen photos or footage of Western movies — full shelves, 100 varieties of sausage and cheese, trendy clothes; they compared salaries. However, they "forgot" how the West goes to taxes (50%), "forgot" about the paid medicine and education, debt slavery, a short vacation. And "forgot" to add to the salary the expenses incurred by the system to provide free medicine, education, and more. When after the destruction they felt it, it was too late. As stated in the Quran: "Let them enjoy, then they will know!" Today clear for Russia and Eastern Europe's decades of socialism was the best in terms of welfare and in terms of historical subjectivity.

Secondly, socialism is much more vulnerable to criticism of society. He posits social justice and equality, and they somehow just violated in the course of development of socialism and the transformation of the item in Casillas, to meet their material needs largely in the West. It was a plain contradiction of the reality and the proclaimed ideals. But capitalism (and post-Soviet reality in the same RF, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, etc.), especially when after the destruction of socialism no one to fear and no need to be shy, would like to announce that we have exploitative society, the market, competition — survival of the fittest — this is freedom. Many of the claims that can be presented to socialism, cannot be brought against capitalism. What can you say to someone who posits: "Yes, that is me shit! This is the norm!" And what can I say? In other words, a significant part of the discontent in the socialist countries is a discontent with the violation of the principles of socialism and stupid confidence that this can be corrected with an injection of capitalism.

Fixed? Better? To paraphrase Gogol: "Well, son, you have helped your Pindos? Has become your homeland's second Law?"

Thirdly, almost all the inhabitants of Pax Socialistica in varying degrees, annoyed by the USSR, irritated Russian — the strong always annoying. All — for different reasons: the poles — because we beat them because, as they boasted, of the great cultures are not created, and as was and remained (and remain) the outskirts of the West, and Russia and great culture created, and the Empire; many — because it fell under Hitler and the Russians not only went, but also broke the backbone of the Third Reich; we have the Victory — one in Europe has it? Russian is the only Slavic people of the Imperial type, created a successful Empire (the Serbs also Imperial people, but historically, for objective reasons, it was hard for them to succeed). It opposes Russian almost all Slavs and all non-Imperial peoples caught up in the Russian orbit, but did not develop a historical appreciation for the fact that Russians have always protected them from the West, especially from the Germans, from the Teutonic wolf pack. Therefore, human was Konstantin Leontiev, in his skepticism towards the "Slavic brotherhood". "Imperial brotherhood" is stronger. We must remember that, when the middle of the XXI century under the onslaught of millions of Arabs and blacks, Europe will begin to crack and people will be flocking to Russia for protection. We will have "total recall" — without malice but also without emotion, only sober calculation. Enough to save ungrateful that on the second day after the next save spit us in the back and start to mow "under the West". When I hear the same poles say "we the West", I want to say to them: "Tell it to the Germans!"

Whether this was the result of a bad economy?

— Economics — element of the system; the system (non-economic allocation of factors of production, the class of interest) determines the element, not Vice versa. Besides the economy of the USSR and the socialist camp as a whole was not bad or weak. Take a look at the numbers.

Before 1985, i.e. before perestroika, the Soviet Union ranked second in the world and first in Europe in industrial production. In 1975 the proportion of the USSR in world industrial production was 20% (for comparison: in 1999 the US — 20,4%, the European Union was 19.8%); the Soviet GDP was 10% of the world. In the same 1975 national income of the USSR was 60-65% of the national income of the United States. Israeli intelligence gave even greater numbers, according to estimates of the Israeli analysts, the standard of living in the Soviet Union, including free and paid services, as well as the so-called ungraded humanitarian factors (crime rate, social protection), accounted for 70-75% of the American and tended to get closer to him. From 1970 to 1975 the share of the sectors in greatest degree determining the efficiency of the national economy (mechanical engineering, power generation, chemical and petrochemical industry), increased from 31% to 36%; then began slipping, but made by 1975 the level was high. Thus for the specified period, the issue of engineering products increased 1.8 times, number of computers — 4 times (at the turn of 1960-1970-ies was discontinued the most important directions in this area, but not all, however, the gap with the US in computers was growing rapidly), devices, means of automation and spare parts — by 1.9 times. In 1975, when the population of 9.4% of the world's SEV gave more than 30% of world industrial production and more than 25% of the world's income; the USSR was producing 60% of industrial output of the CMEA. From 1951 to 1975 the share of socialist countries in world industrial output increased 1.5 times (from 20% to 30%), while the share of capitalist countries has declined from 80% to 50% (with 50% to 22-25%).

Added to the successes of the Soviet agriculture between 1985 and 1990 and especially 1991: the growth amounted to 9.8% compared to 5.8% in the previous five years. The USSR provided the lowest food prices in Europe. Food consumption per capita in 1990-1991 peaked in our history the twentieth century: the bread is 119 kg, meat — 75 kg, 20 kg, milk and dairy products — 386 l, eggs — 97 pieces. 1990 and 1991 marked the exceptionally large crops and rising of livestock. And the shelves in the shops were empty — the deficit was created deliberately to permanently embitter the population of the cities against socialism, to provoke unrest. The collective consciously not purchased their products, instead, the agricultural products were bought from canadian farmers is 5-6 times more expensive. Thus demolished and farms. All this was done also in order to intimidate the population with the threat of famine to justify the price increase. The latter, representing not that other, as the expropriation of money from the public, was to deprive people of financial capacity to participate in the privatization, which had planned for her. Intimidation of the population by the government and official media in the fall of 1991 was, thus, an important preparatory event of privatization.

In fact, no threat of famine was not, it was a lie immediately exposed by the experts later confirmed the correctness of CSB. Gaidar insisted that the semi-annual country's demand in bread supposedly is 25 million tons, and at the end of 1991, the country supposedly there is only 10 million tons with a monthly consumption of 5 million tons; hence the conclusion: after two months, hunger and the threat of civil war. It rests on this false liberal myth of the "Gaidar — the Savior of the country". The reality was quite different. Gaidar deliberately considered the bread with coarse grains, i.e. monthly consumption of 2 million tons; to this we must add available to 2 million tons from the state Reserve and 3.5 million tons of grain imports, which was received in December 1991 — January 1992, i.e. until the next harvest in late July — early August 1992, this is more than enough. But the big lie Gaydar was not even 5 million tons of monthly consumption of bread of the country, and that 26 million tons is the annual, not semiannual consumption, and confirmed that the statistical report 1992, However, the fall of 1991, Yeltsin's team managed to push their lies in all media.

Is there a system similar to socialist but with a good economy?

— I said that a socialist economy was not weak; moreover, it was successful, especially in comparison with the capitalist, paradoxically as it may sound. We, unfortunately, could not imagine the realities of the U.S. economy in 1970-1980-ies. Now, we have not socialism — we have a good economy? In most parts of the capitalist world — economy is bad and hard life. It is admitted even by such advocates of Westernism, capitalism, as Yavlinsky, and Gaidar. They fixed the "miserable condition" and "stagnant poverty" of the most capitalist countries. However, the recipe for success they were strange refusal of the sovereignty in the Euro-Atlantic integration, or — peripheral position, and poverty. Hard to say what is more — deliberate falsehood or impenetrable stupidity. After all, the cession of the West, which leads to the dictates of transnational corporations, and is the cause of poverty and periferies the greater part of the capitalist countries. The capitalist world is a world of poverty, and growing: in 2009, 1% of the population owned 44% of global wealth; in 2014, 48%; in 2016 — 50%. In 2015 the poverty line (living on less than $ 1.25 a day. per day) in the world lived 830 million people (14% of the population); and about 40% live on $ 2 a day. a day. "A good economy" — the part kapmira who robs the weak (colonies, semi-colonies) and churns out dollar bills. Yes, once again wonder at people with some level of intelligence thrown upward perestroika and post-perestroika. However, it is possible, that such and were selected for the implementation of the semi-colonial scheme.

— Shortages and queues — this indispensable companion of socialism?

— Unfortunately, the deficiency of the economy — a characteristic feature of socialism, in the form in which he really existed in history. She has several economic and political reasons. This is, firstly, the need for accelerated development of the military-industrial complex and maintain military-strategic parity with the West, with a smaller GNP than the collective West. It should be remembered that in the socialist camp, the main military burden fell on the Soviet Union, while NATO military expenditures were distributed somewhat more evenly. For example, in 1975 the military spending of the Warsaw Pact — 110,3 billion., of them, the Soviet Union is 99.8 billion; NATO — 184,9 billion, of which US — 101, 2 billion; 1980, respectively 119.5 billion and 107,3 billion and for 193.9 billion and 111,2 billion of Course, that countries such as the industrialized GDR and Czechoslovakia, faced with a significantly reduced deficit. As for Poland, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria, it was originally a very poor country. Now in all these countries there is no deficit, and people live much worse.

In the Soviet Union in 1990, i.e. before the collapse of the system, when we have been told how bad and frighten the coming famine, the consumption of meat and meat products amounted to 78 kg per capita (import — 13%), and after 15 years in the Russian Federation — 57 kg (import — 35%). So not everything has to be measured by the deficit as an isolated figure. Secondly, of course, the deficit was the economic reasons associated with the specificity of socialism as a system is unwieldy administrative system, the lack of improvement of the socialist methods of planning; so, in the USSR, a planned economy is de facto ceased to exist in 1972-1973 and on the conciliation of the economy, which tried to "cure" capitalist methods. Recovered. Thirdly, the deficit, poorly compatible with the economic life of the system, was created artificially in the Soviet Union in 1989-1990, through the implementation of the law on state enterprises (adopted June 30, 1987, for all enterprises entered into force 1 January 1989). According to this suicidal for the economy of the USSR law, a large number of companies have received the right of direct access to the world market, i.e. it was de facto liquidated the monopoly of foreign trade. The products of these enterprises are sold on the global market for dollars; then within the country the dollars were exchanged for rubles and the ruble supply, not provided with the product. In the Soviet Union since the credit reforms of 1930-1932 rigidly maintained a balance between commodity weight and money supply, between nalom and Bank transfer. The law on state enterprises already in 1989 broke this system, and the people rushed to sweep away from shelves everything that was in stores. 1990-1991 additional zealous "Democrats" openly called to create a deficit of anger of the masses against the system, against socialism, as a salvation from the slips of which "market economy", i.e. capitalism.

All you need to say that we still live with myths — about ourselves, about the Soviet Union, pre-revolutionary Russia, about our historical figures. After 1991, the shield suddenly stood up to raise committed by the losers, to make them figures of historic proportions — Alexander II, laid the Foundation of the revolutions of 1905 and 1917, Stolypin, Nicholas II. All this is projected on today's reality and, being based on poor knowledge of history, has negative practical results.

Example: created Stolypin club (which, incidentally, was assigned to develop a program of economic development of the Russian Federation). The club named Stolypin. The organizers apparently believe that it was a successful statesman, has decided the tasks that faced the country. Well, of course: recall the words of Peter Abramovich of "great Russia", etc. However, if the "stolypinskiy" better know the history, then, most likely, would have hesitated: how the boat call, so it will float. One thing — "Victory", another — "...trouble." Apparently, strawberries are impressed by the fact that Stolypin wanted to carry out a massive land privatization (and forced) to destroy the collective farm. It is in the spirit eltsinschiny schemes of Gaidar — Chubais and their overseas curators. Here only results of the Stolypin reforms — bummer. Reform has not stopped the fall in all indices, per capita, on the contrary, she accelerated, and the impoverishment of the peasantry of the center of the country has acquired catastrophic proportions.

The first agricultural Congress held in Kiev in 1913, recorded: the majority of the peasants, the reform gave nothing — failed. The provisional government in 1917 recognized the Stolypin reforms failed. It is significant that, by 1920 during the Civil war, the peasants returned 99% land in communal property of the peasants Stolypin.

Stolypin was typical reformer is a loser, his performance is not to win but trouble, including order system, whose interests are defended Stolypin and the existence of which sought to extend.

Even worse were the political results of reform. In an effort to destroy the community, Stolypin was made the most massive layer of the naive monarchists conservatives, which were the peasants in the agrarian revolutionaries. And that would happen to Russia if Stolypin had not been would-be reformer, even scary to think. In this case, the revolution in Russia there would be commercials in the year 1912 or 1913, as the city would have been thrown 20-30 million lost their land farmers who would not find in the city any work. Here it slammed to be, and much better than in 1917, the Stolypin — against his will — and so brought the revolution, but he could bring her more.

And the thought creeps in: maybe "stolypinskiy" everyone knows it and secretly sympathize with the revolution? Have any ideas on this? Likely not. But then — immediately school history textbook in hand.

This is just one example of the incidents results in poor knowledge of their own history, and examples of these a lot.


— Geo-climatic catastrophe is an accident or a reaction of a smarter planet (or Space) at the destruction of her person?

— Geo-climatic catastrophe occurred before the advent of man. Even today the scale of human activities is still so small that a global climatic catastrophe will not pull. Do not listen to unscrupulous environmentalists. But nature must be protected, including from the person. With regard to the term "reasonable", it is unlikely that it is applicable to the planet. I would suggest: organized by integrity, focused on the maintenance of balance, ie self-preservation, and eliminating any elements that threaten the whole. Externally it looks like a reasonable behavior, but it's something different — not worse or better than another.

— The seriousness of the attitudes of Western elites is a manifestation of the fact that they more we know about how nature worked?

— First, the more you know, the Western elite older than our own. Second, they are better organized, they are rooted in its history. Our "elite" — the pre-Petrine, the St. Petersburg Soviet existed a relatively short period of time to become really elite. In addition, we have a dominant group has never been independent, representing the functional bodies and the elitism is always subjectivity.

Study of the possibility of climatic catastrophe is underway in the West behind closed doors last 50 - 60 years. According to my information, in the middle of 1980-ies from the Western researchers have any confidence in the fact that in the Western hemisphere in the late 1990-ies will be a disaster and that the only stable area will be the territory of the USSR. In the early 1990-ies of the anxiety has abated, time receded, but the threat of climatic catastrophe will not go away.

— Is it possible the view that our planet itself erases a deadlock branch of development, whether it be dinosaurs or hopeless civilization ("Hammer of Lucifer")?

— It is possible. Planet is a holistic system.

— Do you agree that modern society like a cancer patient the body, in addition, devoid of feelings of pain?

— I agree, but the feeling of pain is, it is ugly — in antics, for example. This pain mangles, even freaks and sociopaths. As for your metaphor, I sometimes think that there is a huge tumor, the edge of which sat what remained of a healthy society. Here necessarily remember the "Occam's razor".

— Leaders do not feel discomfort when you hit the bottom in a difficult position.

— The upper classes, generally insensitive to the lower classes, especially those of the upper classes, who yesterday got out of the dirt, which is essentially antiaristocratic duds. It is enough to remember recent history, when another group of "aristocrats of garbage" and demanded to protect them "Patrika" from the "ball" of the residential areas of Moscow. People don't realize that their social racism incite class hatred, which is then going to hit them or their children. They would be John Donne read: "ask Not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee."

— The lower classes do not have freedom of maneuver for the predicament.

— The social triumph of the lower classes — a rare thing in history. The Soviet Union was for several decades a triumph of the common people, but from the middle 1950-x of years the national socialism of the Stalinist era began to turn into a "bureaucratic socialism" of the clerk, which since the end of 1960-ies really wanted to integrate into the world capitalist system; that they were the masters of the world socialist system, they are not inspired.

Kapsistema world and associated many of these people, as well as their post-Soviet successors, with sweet and beautiful life, often in its most vulgar form. It reminds me a lot of dreams bandit John Colorado from the movie "Gold McKenna", carefully keeping the faded newspaper "Parisian life", which depicts cannonrosi girls rich in taverns and their frequenters. "Parisian life" is a dominant behavior.

Those who changed the world socialist system, an alternative to capitalism, are offended that they have not booked a place in the center kapsistemy. Disease, before you were masters of a Large System; agreeing on "entry in burzhuinstve", ie for the inclusion in another Big System as its element you agreed to the position of proprietors of small little system, making it Big. An integer identifying the element, and not Vice versa. The proprietor could not sit beside the master, for which he is only a clerk. It is with the owner of a Large System of the USSR masters of the West were equal, and now excuzes nous (excuse us). Left by Timur Kibirov: "We are puked all over the hallway. / And here we are driven, we are taken out". Even with flowing senile Brezhnev, no Western leader would dare to talk like the late Gorbachev or Yeltsin.

— Modern capitalism is a mill for the grinding of resources, and sinking them in the trash. Many of these resources are irreplaceable.

— The current capitalism is a dump. One of its symbols is an installation with faeces, torn jeans and fishnet lingerie.


— Is it possible, planned crisis-free economy, focused on satisfaction of human needs?

— Barely. Nonequilibrium and nonlinearity — the inherent quality of nature; "eternal rest heart is unlikely to please, eternal rest for gray-haired pyramids." And speaking of the coming century, it will generally be global "buntashny century", instability and crises — it is the norm.

Is there a resource-based economy, where Finance is put them in a subordinate place?

— Of course, possible. Frenzied Finance is the symptom of the deadly disease of capitalism, its "kiss of death". In any social system except capitalism, and only in its later lethal phase, we have not seen so comprehensive government — not even money, but something strange, because the money essentially died. If you can print as many unsubstantiated pieces of paper, it means that none of the five basic functions of money these pieces of paper there. It is a sort of hearth, painted on canvas.

— What has prevented Leont'ev to create a theory of an economy?

I do not know. Maybe the time has not come; perhaps the interest was in the other; maybe the US is not the best place to develop such a theory.

— Any science is valuable based on her predictions. What predictions can offer historical science today?

Historical science can not offer anything. Offer people, i.e. historians, and they tend to focus on the past, and often describe it to small pieces. Scientific history — historiology — yet to be established.

Forecast for the near future is simple: capitalism will die, he will hardly live to mid-XXI century and certainly will not live up to the beginning of the XXII century. To die it will be ugly and bloody. A significant part of the planet barbarities. White people it would be considerably less, and they have to fight to the death to remain in history, but themselves to blame for what has made this situation. Now kids, especially boys (they'll grow men), need to educate for life in wartime: "if you Want peace, prepare for war". And you need to educate by example, not homosexuals and prostitutes, and on the heroic examples. Note: the screens vanished heroics, from classrooms disappeared portraits of pioneer heroes.

Ideology and religion will remain in the past, in their place, most likely, is a magic that is closely connected with high technologies, especially cognitive. The level of culture of society as a whole will fall. Family library will be a luxury, but a volitional intelligence, and knowledge in futurearchitect the world are valued very highly. Advice to parents: seriously engaged in the education of children, do not let Egiziano school to turn them into cosmopolitan morons.

Barring catastrophe, at the turn of XXI–XXII centuries, the situation stabiliziruemost and there will be new social system, very far from that described by the great Ivan Efremov "Andromeda" and early in the book Strugatsky "Return. Noon, XXII century". What exactly the system is depends on who and how in the XXI century will win the fight for the future. Conclusion: need to raise winners. However, all can change of climatic disaster or perhaps a huge asteroid, as happened 65-70 thousand years ago when mankind is a few thousand, if not hundreds of people slip through the "bottleneck" of History. We are their descendants. It is not excluded that the (relatively) to the grandchildren of our grandchildren will have to survive a disaster of this kind. This does not mean you have to be pessimistic, on the contrary. As taught by the great Marxist of the twentieth century, Antonio Gramsci: "pessimism of the mind, but optimism of the will". Or as the hero of the story D. Aldridge "the Last inch": "Man can do everything if only not injure their navel". To be able, it is necessary to have power; not to overstrain stomach — mind. Coupled with an understanding of global development trends, it is a powerful triad that is required for Victory. Forward to Victory!

With A. Fursov interviewed O. Morozov


RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics